FAITH AND REASON
An Objective Study
IN ITS ISSUE No. 134 (1992), the journal, Faith and Reason, from Manchester College, Oxford (England), published an article titled, ‘The Relationship between Faith and Reason’, by Dr Paul Badham. Paul Badham is professor emeritus of Theology and Religious Studies at St. David’s College, Lampeter, in the University of Wales. His paper in this issue had been presented at a Conference of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow in November 1991.
Professor Badham’s paper can indeed be called thought-provoking and, as such, is worth reading, but he has made certain points with which I do not agree. He states that philosophical certainty should not be confused with religious certitude. He writes: ‘As a philosopher of religion I feel compelled to acknowledge that faith could never be placed on the same level of certainty as scientific knowledge’.
In contrast, I feel that faith and belief can indeed be placed on the same level of certainty as scientific theory. In the twenty-first century, there is no real difference between the two.
Religion and Science—At Same Level of Certainty
As Bertrand Russell puts it, knowledge is of two kinds—knowledge of things and knowledge of truths. This dichotomy exists in religion as well as in science. For instance, to the scientist who regards biological evolution as a scientific fact, there are two aspects to be considered. One is related to the organic part of species, and the other relates to the law of evolution which is inherently and covertly operative in the continuing process of change among the species.
When an evolutionist studies the outward physical appearance of species, he may be said to be studying ‘things’. On the other hand, when he studies the law of evolution, he deals with that aspect of the subject, which is termed as the study, or knowledge of ‘truths.’
Every evolutionist knows that there is a basic difference between the two aspects. As far as the study of things or the phenomena of evolution is concerned, direct evidence is available. For instance, because the study of fossils found in various layers of the earth’s crust is possible at the level of observation, working hypotheses may be based thereon.
On the contrary, as far as facts about the law of evolution are concerned, due to the impossibility of objective observation, direct argument is not possible. For instance, the concept of sudden mutations in organs is entirely based on assumptions, rather than on direct observation. In the case of mutations, external changes are observable, but the cause, that is, the law of nature, is totally unobservable. That is why all evolutionists make use of indirect argument, which in logic is known as inferential argument.
The concept of mutation forms the basis of the theory of evolution. However, there are two aspects to the matter. One comes under observation, but the second part is totally unobservable. It is only by making use of the principle of inference that this second part of evolution may be included in the theory of evolution.
It is a commonplace that all the offspring of men or animals are not uniform. Differences of one kind or another are to be found among them. In modern times, this biological phenomenon has been scientifically studied. These studies have revealed that spontaneous changes are suddenly produced in the foetus in the mother’s womb. It is these changes that are responsible for the differences between children of the same parents.
These differences between offspring are observable. But the philosophy of evolution subsequently formed on the basis of this observation is totally unobservable and is based only on inferential argument. That is to say, that the ‘things’ of evolution are observable, while the ‘truths’ inferred from observation are unobservable.
Now, what the evolutionist does—as an example—is put a goat at one end and a giraffe at the other. Then, taking some middle specimens of fossils, he forms a theory that the neck of one of the offspring of the earlier generation of the goat was somewhat taller. Then, when this particular offspring with the taller neck gave birth, this tallness for generations spanning millions of years ultimately converted the initial goat with a taller neck into a species like the giraffe in its advanced stage. Charles Darwin writes of this change in his book The Origin of Species: “It seems to me almost certain that an ordinary hoofed quadrupled might be converted into a giraffe”.
In this case, the existence of differences between the various offspring of a goat is itself a known fact. But the accumulation of this difference, generation after generation, over millions of years resulting in a new species known as ‘giraffe’ is wholly unobservable and unrepeatable. This conclusion has been inferred from observation; the whole process of mutation developing into a new species has never come under direct observation.
Exactly the same is true of the subject of religion. One aspect of the study of religion is the study of its history, its personalities, its injunctions, its rites and its rituals. The above division (knowledge of things and knowledge of truths) amounts to a study of the ‘things’ of religion. In respect of religion, objective information is likewise available. As such, the study of religion too can be done on the basis of direct observations exactly as is done in the study of biological evolution.
The second aspect of the study of religion is what is termed, in general, beliefs pertaining to the unseen world. These are the beliefs that are beyond our known sensory world. That is, the existence of God and the angels, revelation, Hell and Heaven, etc. In this other aspect of religion, direct observations do not exist. The study of religion must, therefore, be done in the light of that logical principle called inference on the basis of observation, that is, the same logical principle which the evolutionists employ in the second aspect of their theory.
Looked at in the light of this principle, both religion and science are at par. Both have two equally different parts. One part is based on such scientific certainty as permits direct argument. The other part is based on scientific inference, to prove which only the principle of indirect argument may be used. Keeping this logical division before us, we can find no actual difference between the two.
The unnecessary apologia for religious uncertainty made by Professor Badham is occasioned by his inability to consider this difference and his confusing one area of study with another. Making the error of false analogy, he is comparing the first part of science to the second part of religion and looking at the second part of religion in the light of the first part of science. This meaningless comparison is responsible for the ill considered conclusions he has arrived at in his article.
Had the Professor compared the first part of science to the first part of religion and the second part of science to the second part of religion, his inferiority complex (as a man of religion) would have ceased to exist. He would have felt that, purely as a matter of principle, wrong parallels had been drawn. The argument used in the first part of science is equally applicable to the first part of religion. Similarly, the argument applied to the second part of science is equally applicable to the second part of religion.
This is a truth which has been acknowledged even by a staunch and leading atheist like Bertrand Russell. At the beginning of his book Why I am not a Christian, he has set forth what he considers a valid argument. He points out that in his view, all the great religions of the world Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism—were all untrue and harmful and that it is not possible to prove their validity from the logical point of view. Those who have opted for one religion or the other have done so, according to Russell, under the influence of their traditions and environment, rather than on the strength of argument.
However, Bertrand Russell has admitted this fact—that a belief based on rational argument is valid—when he says, “There is one of these arguments which is not purely illogical. I mean the argument from design. This argument, however, was destroyed by Darwin.”
He intends here to say that the existence of God is proved by the argument that in this world where there is design there should be a designer. He admits that this method of argument in its nature is the same as that used to prove scientific concepts. However, even after this admission, he rejects this argument by saying that it has been destroyed by Darwinism.
This is, however, a wholly baseless point, as Darwin’s theory is related to the Creator’s process of creation rather than to the existence of the Creator. To put it briefly, Darwinism states that the various species found in the world were not separate creations but had changed from one species into separate species over a prolonged period of evolution by a process of natural selection.
It is obvious that this theory is not related to the existence or nonexistence of God. It deals with the process of creation instead of the Creator. That is to say, if it was hitherto believed that God created each species separately, now, after accepting the theory of evolution, it has to be believed that God originally created an initial species which was invested with the capability of multiplying into numerous species. And, then, He set in motion a natural process in the universe favourable to such multiplication. In this way, over a long period of time, this primary species fulfilled its potential by changing into innumerable species. To put it another way, the theory of evolution is not a study of the existence of God but, simply, of how God displayed in the universe His power of creation. That is why Darwin himself has concluded his famous book The Origin of Species with these words:
There is grandeur in this view of life, that having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
It is true that the new facts regarding the universe discovered in the twentieth century have revolutionized the world of logic. The difference between religious argument and scientific argument which had been erroneously conceived has been eliminated. In respect of argument, the case of science too has reached exactly the same point as religion.
Both Direct and Inferential Argument are Valid
Newton (1642-1727) made a special study of the solar system, discovering laws governing the revolution of planets around the sun. His study was, however, confined to astronomical bodies, which can be called the macroworld. It is possible in the macroworld to weigh and measure things. As a result of the immediate impact of these discoveries, many began to think along the lines that reality was observable and that the proper and valid argument was one based on observation. It was under the influence of this concept that the philosophy generally known as logical positivism came into being.
However, the discoveries made in the first quarter of the twentieth century shook the very foundation of the preliminary theories. These later discoveries revealed that beyond this world of appearance, a whole world was hidden, a world which does not come under observation. It is only indirectly possible to understand this hidden world and present arguments in its favour. That is, by observing the effects of something, we arrive at an understanding of its existence.
This discovery altered the whole picture. When the access of human knowledge was limited to the macrocosmic world, man was a prey to the misapprehension—that reality is only that which is observable. But when human knowledge penetrated the microworld, the academic situation underwent a paradigm shift.
Now it was revealed that the field of direct argument was extremely limited. New facts which came to the knowledge of man were so abstruse that indirect or inferential argument alone was applicable. For instance, in 1895, the German scientist Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen found during an experiment that on a glass before him some effects were observable despite the fact that there was no known link between his experiment and the glass. He concluded that there was an invisible radiation, which was travelling at the speed of 186,000 miles per second. Due to the unknown nature of this radiation, Roentgen named it X-ray.
The twentieth century brought forth the discoveries of a number of things like X-rays which do not come under direct human observation. However, due to their effects having come to the knowledge of man, it was not possible to deny their existence. As a result of modern research, not only were different departments of science revolutionized but the science of logic too witnessed fundamental changes.
Now inferential reasoning was also accepted as a valid method of reasoning, for, without discoveries like X-rays, the scientific structure of the atom, the existence of dark matter, etc., could not be explained.
After the extension of this method of reasoning in modern times, argument on religious faith has become as valid as reasoning on scientific concepts. Exactly the same inferential logic, which was employed to prove the newly discovered concepts of science, was applicable to religious faiths to prove their veracity. Differences in the criterion of logic have now vanished.
